Top general says it was “quickly apparent” Benghazi was a terrorist attack

Courtesy of General Carter Ham, who was head of American forces in Africa at the time of the Benghazi attack, a reminder that President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and their minions lied shamelessly about the incident. They lied repeatedly, they lied fluently, and they got a friendly “journalist” to help them escape consequences for their lies at the 2012 presidential debates. They lied for nakedly political reasons, to keep the public from becoming aware of the gross incompetence that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, and to keep Obama’s campaign narrative of a liberated Libya and “decimated” al-Qaeda alive. They lied because they didn’t want to admit Barack Obama wandered off to get some shut-eye before a big Las Vegas fundraiser while the attack was in progress. They lied because they didn’t want to give Obama’s opponent in the presidential race an opening to critique the incumbent’s foreign policy. Their lies offended the new government of Libya, which caused complications when American law-enforcement teams were sent to investigate the scene of the attack. That’s one reason no one has been brought to justice yet.

Not since Bill Clinton got caught in an affair with a young intern has an American president lied so brazenly to the American public, and they’re still lying to this day. But here’s the truth from General Ham, who says it “became apparent to all of us quickly that this was not a demonstration, this was a violent attack.” And he was in Washington on the evening of September 11, 2012.

Ham said he was in Washington D.C. for a routine meeting on September 11, 2012 with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, when an alert came in from commanders in Stuttgart, Germany that a violent assault was underway on the consulate in Benghazi and Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing.

Asked if it was a terrorist attack, Ham said the intelligence left no doubt that it was.

“I don’t know if that was my first reaction, but pretty quickly as we started to gain understanding within the hours after the initiation of the attack, yes.”

Ham made these remarks at the Aspen Security Forum. It’s amazing that our political and media elites have so thoroughly accepted Obama’s lies, and his “right” to lie about a deadly attack for political reasons, that such comments can be delivered without causing a stir. It hasn’t even been a year since the Benghazi attack, but as far as the media is concerned, Obama and Clinton got away with lying about it, so it’s ancient history now. The quotes above are from Fox News, the only outlet that seems to think it’s terribly important that a top U.S. general just said everyone knew the President’s line about “spontaneous video protests” was total crap.

Can the guy who made the YouTube video Obama and Clinton falsely blamed for the attack get out of jail now? Would General Ham at least be willing to testify at his next parole hearing?

Ham also offered a curious response to allegations that the Administration could have done more to respond to the Benghazi attack while it was in progress:

While Ham did not address reports he was pushed into retirement after Benghazi, he said a quick response to the attack was not possible — and he defended the decision not to scramble fighter jets.

“It was perfectly understandable to me why people would say you should have done that (but) in my military judgment, there was not a necessity and there was not a clear purpose in doing so.”

There’s a difference between saying a response was “not possible,” and saying it was “not a necessity” or lacked a “clear purpose.” How was that assessment made? And why weren’t there any assets in range to help the Ambassador when he came under fire? He went into the terrorist hot zone our media doesn’t like to talk about, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and there was nothing available to help him out when he came under attack. Why is one of the people responsible for that appalling state of affairs still seriously discussed as a 2016 presidential candidate?

You can probably guess how the Administration responded to General Ham’s comments: more lies, from full-time professional liar Jen Psaki (“Any report or Tweet that Secretary Kerry was on a boat is completely inaccurate”) coupled with the hoary “old news” defense, which the media would never accept under any circumstances from a Republican Administration:

“This Administration has always been clear that violent extremists were involved in this attack,” Psaki said. “The question was who exactly they were and whether there was also a demonstration at the same time. It now appears that there wasn’t, despite the intelligence assessment at the time.”

Oh, so they said they thought there was also a video protest going on while the precision mortar rounds were flying overhead? Are you going to just lie there and take that garbage, media? Is there anyone left with an ounce of self-respect in the press corps? Far from being “old news,” it’s extremely timely and relevant that a State Department spokeswoman still thinks it’s important to lie about the Benghazi attack and its aftermath. There’s no reason to think the Administration will be any more truthful, or competent, when dealing with similar situations in the future. And they’re asking us to take many other things on faith, while ignoring a pivotal incident that proves they cannot be trusted.